Well, I dont really have much to say about myself (riiight). But seeing as how some of my fellow FReepers tend to FReak out if a person doesnt have *something* on this page, Ive decided to go ahead and try.

First, sometimes I will write a post that references my law background, and other times I will write a post that reflects my software background. Dont FReak out. Both are true. Ive worked as a software guy for most of my life, but I had a midlife crisis and decided to hedge my bets by getting a law degree. I got my license to practice in Illinois just a few years ago, so I am an active lawyer. But my income from software still dominates, so theres that too.

As for my positioning on the many issues that define FReeperdom, heres a quick summary, so you dont have to guess where Im coming from. I reserve the right to add to this list as I think of more topic areas Freepers fight about.

First, I am a Christian. And yes, Im one of those. Only Jesus can save your soul. Not you, not me, not some self-made deity, and not some human-run earthly organization either. But if denominational pigeonholes are important to you, I am Reformed Baptist, i.e., I am an old school Calvinistic Baptist. In terms of Bible prophecy, I used to be a dispensationalist (I was born into it), was briefly an amillenialist, but would now say I am an historic premillenialist.

Second, and in consequence of the first, I believe in the natural law approach to human governance, of which the finest expression in modern times is our own constitutional republic.

Which is where my handle, Springfield Reformer, comes from. Im reformed theologically, so Im a reformer in that sense. But also politically. As one who accepts the sovereignty of God, I not only accept the rule of God over my personal life, but I recognize the effect the believer has in this life of acting as salt and light in a world prone to corruption, and that is the only reliable source of political reform and the advancement of conservative values in the culture.

In that connection, I believe any attempt to separate social conservatism from fiscal conservatism is doomed to failure. God has designed the world in such a way, that a culture that does not respect life, or cannot recognize the heterosexual nuclear family as the ideal environment for the creation and nurture of children, will find it lacks the rationality to produce good fiscal outcomes as well, as the respect for human life, and the rational benefits of the natural family, are the natural law predicates upon which we have built all our other successes. Cutting back on those would be like cutting Samson's hair. It will weaken us, and perhaps lead to our demise in spectacular fashion. So surrendering to the "Fiscal Conservatism Onlyists" is not an option. It will be our undoing if we allow it to happen.

In regard to ecclesiastical authority, I will listen to anything once, measure it against the plain meaning of Scripture, and always take the side of Scripture. I have a preference for the KJV, but Im not an Onlyist. Greek and Hebrew are just fine with me. But I do lean hard towards the Byzantine text.

On the life issue I am prolife, both in theory and in practice. As to how this should play out politically, I believe respect for states rights under constitutional federalism is the best approach. Our Constitution is the law of the land. God set this law over us in his providence. This law requires us to recognize the limitations of the federal government solely to the powers enumerated to it, leaving the unspecified powers for us to exert in the several states. Under our system, it is the police power of the individual state that can and should establish the framework for preventing all murders, including abortion. Federal impositions on private citizens based on unwarranted expansions of federal power into areas reserved to the states are detrimental to the whole nation, and will never be as effective in actually stopping the killing as the creation and enforcement of state laws protecting the unborn.

On fiscal issues I am, once again, a constitutionalist. Our federal government should have a very limited role in promoting the national well-being, but it has accumulated to itself more and more power, through many abuses of our Constitution. We are obligated as a people to hold our leaders accountable for those abuses and the grotesque expansions of federal spending entailed in those abuses.

Well, theres more I could say, but most likely no one read this far anyway, so Ill quit for now. If you did read this far, thanks for your interest. Perhaps well meet some day in the forums.